Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews
Reconfirmations without objections Enterprise (NX-01) FA from 2004, haven't read it yet, so I'm not sure if it's still up to snuff. - 21:03, June 8, 2012 (UTC) :Much of the bg info seems to be more suitable for the page. --Defiant 23:12, June 8, 2012 (UTC) :Also, am I right in thinking we consistently should be using the 8 June format (rather than the June 8 format)? --Defiant 23:15, June 8, 2012 (UTC) I've never really been sure why this wiki uses the international dating format when the show uses the American format. The format for the dates is like that on this page because that's the format they used in the show. If anything, the rest of the wiki should change, but I doubt that's going to happen. - 00:03, June 9, 2012 (UTC) :As an editor elsewhere in the world from the self-centered U.S. of A., I'm personally happiest to use the format currently in usage. However, I'm obviously not a consensus, and I do see merit in changing it to the method used most in the show (as you were saying). --Defiant 00:07, June 9, 2012 (UTC) I meant to have ", particularly ENT" at the end of the second sentence in my last post, but for some reason didn't write it. That should make me sound like less of an ass hopefully. Changing the dates wiki wide would require multiple bot runs, several template changes, not to mention just plain old eyes on the page for a few of them. While all that is doable, it would require several people over the course of a few days at least to complete, which is why I doubt anyone would seriously consider it, since there isn't anything particularly wrong with the current system. That said, I do tend to write in universe dates in the American standard though, with real world dates using the international one. - 00:27, June 9, 2012 (UTC) I'm inclined to oppose this article, due to the lack of bg info and with so many images apparently randomly placed (thereby lending not a lot to the article). --Defiant 15:24, June 10, 2012 (UTC) Battle of Wolf 359 FA from 2004, haven't read it yet, so I'm not sure if it's still up to snuff. - 21:03, June 8, 2012 (UTC) * Hold--For the moment (and I DO want this to be featured), I'm missing some info relating to the events leading up to this event (from in respect to the "Prelude section") and on a very personal note, while it has been split off in the past, I personally would like to see the reintegration of Starships at Wolf 359 into the article--Sennim 21:23, June 8, 2012 (UTC) That merge should then be suggested as soon as possible, and this can remain on hold until it is resolved. Just an FYI for everyone though, the order I've been using for bringing these up for reconfirmation is the nomination archive (since the list here is still dictated by when the category was added when it was created), so everyone can check the articles likely to be reconfirmed next. - 22:27, June 8, 2012 (UTC) *Well, I've opened that debate--Sennim 03:09, June 9, 2012 (UTC) Reconfirmations with objections Yesterday's Enterprise (episode) Easily one of the best TNG episodes, and a FA since 2004. Haven't read it yet, so not sure either way just yet. - 18:23, May 23, 2012 (UTC) *'Support'. Seems to still be one of the best articles we have. - 08:39, May 26, 2012 (UTC) *'Support', still seems good. 31dot 10:13, May 26, 2012 (UTC) *'Support'. Well written and very detailed. Tom 08:47, May 31, 2012 (UTC) *'Support', in agreement with the other users' assesment--Sennim 15:04, June 4, 2012 (UTC) :Comment: I've always thought this article is a bit too over-hyped, as there are lots of missing citations in the bg info. --Defiant 09:27, June 7, 2012 (UTC) Where? - 09:33, June 7, 2012 (UTC) :Basically everywhere! There's lots of uncited observations, the likes of which have been removed elsewhere on this site (such as the comparison between Landru and the Borg, during the Landru page's own reconfirmation). This page's first section should probably be cited more than it is, as I don't remember any quotations in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion (but possibly I'm misremembering). Also, as far as I can see, all the publications cited don't have any page numbers, so the article could still be improved in that respect. --Defiant 10:01, June 7, 2012 (UTC) I would prefer if you actually mark what parts you have a problem with instead of just saying everywhere and eluding to an issue without using the text itself. You don't have to prove why there is a problem before saying what it is. I only see a couple of paragraphs cited to the same book, which I don't own and therefor can't check, and self evident observations. Some of that may need to be reworded or cut, but I can't make the case for you. As for the page numbers, if someone with the book has the time do add them, that would be a big help. I would like to think this page hasn't been sitting here for nearly two weeks for nothing. - 11:20, June 7, 2012 (UTC) ::I've added the page numbers for the books I have. I have checked, and the quotes Defiant mentions are indeed in the Next Generation Companion on pp. 116-117. The first section does seem to reflect the Companion.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 11:27, June 7, 2012 (UTC) :Okay, that's good. I'm quite busy today, and won't have computer access for the next few hours. There's bg info on the Surak page about this episode; it requires a citation, which when I looked at this page was not available from it, unfortunately. There's also some info in an issue of Star Trek Magazine which I'll try to add later in the day. I don't see the FA reconfirmation of this page being opposed even with these changes that could be made, though. --Defiant 11:42, June 7, 2012 (UTC) ::I've added a supporting citation to the first section so it isn't so reliant on one source. I also added a couple more RDM quotes ™. I think that's all the info I've got.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 11:47, June 7, 2012 (UTC) *Actually, I've just looked at the summary section and found it could definitely use some improvement too, so oppose. The summary is one of those that reads more like a novel, IMHO, with big blocks of text that are unappealing to read and difficult to get through. Also, I really think the bg info could use some more help than just chucking citations at it. All in all, the page needs a lot of work. --Defiant 09:53, June 8, 2012 (UTC) Bajoran wormhole FA from 2004, haven't read it yet, so I'm not sure if it's still up to snuff. - 21:03, June 8, 2012 (UTC) :Could probably do with some more bg info, as there's only a single sentence. --Defiant 21:31, June 8, 2012 (UTC) I'm going to take the unusual step of opposing this article because, while I think it should be featured, I had to almost completely rewrite it. I'll support it after some more eyes have been over this, and I think five votes are called for here. - 22:02, June 8, 2012 (UTC) *'Oppose'. - 22:02, June 8, 2012 (UTC) Early reconfirmations